On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> That would mean http://annevankesteren.com/robots.txt cannot have an
> icon, unless we revive the Link header somehow, but there wasn't much
> interest in that.
Actually, there is now, at least on Google’s side, in the context of
Naviga
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Niels Keurentjes
wrote:
> The message to web developers should just be "if you want icons, explicitly
> specify them".
That would mean http://annevankesteren.com/robots.txt cannot have an
icon, unless we revive the Link header somehow, but there wasn't much
inte
--
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Anne van Kesteren
Sent: woensdag 30 juli 2014 10:52
To: Niels Keurentjes
Cc: WHATWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] apple-touch-icon
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Niels Keurentjes
wrote:
> Given that the /favicon.ico
- Original Message -
> From: "Niels Keurentjes"
> Cc: "WHATWG"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:48:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] apple-touch-icon
>
> Given that the /favicon.ico fallback is really only there for IE5/6/7
> compatibility to my
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Niels Keurentjes
wrote:
> Given that the /favicon.ico fallback is really only there for IE5/6/7
> compatibility to my knowledge,
Uhm, no. It's universally supported.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
ent: dinsdag 29 juli 2014 23:22
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: WHATWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] apple-touch-icon
I'd really like to avoid sticking this in specs. We already have 3 ways of
adding icons, /favicon.ico, and . That's
probably about 2 too many. We shouldn't add a 4th one. Gene
I'd really like to avoid sticking this in specs. We already have 3
ways of adding icons, /favicon.ico, and . That's probably about 2 too many. We shouldn't add a
4th one. Generally speaking, eventually I think manifests is what will
encourage the best UX and the easiest syntax for authors.
Given
On 29 July 2014 12:46, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:59 PM, John Mellor wrote:
> > We still support apple-touch-icon-* via link rel under some circumstances
> > (e.g. for add to homescreen), but they're deprecated[3], since we'd like
> > authors to use the standard for this,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:59 PM, John Mellor wrote:
> Chrome 30 dropped support[1] for fetching apple-touch-icon-* from well known
> URLs, since the 404 pages that are usually returned were consuming 3-4% of
> all mobile bandwidth usage[2]. We're unlikely to reverse that.
Good to know – thanks!
Using a single JPEG/PNG that is also part of the home page display is a way
to mitigate bandwidth used.
Another way to do this is to use an SVG for a logo - which browsers support
this now?
On 28 Jul 2014 07:59, "John Mellor" wrote:
> Chrome 30 dropped support[1] for fetching apple-touch-icon-* f
Chrome 30 dropped support[1] for fetching apple-touch-icon-* from well
known URLs, since the 404 pages that are usually returned were consuming
3-4% of all mobile bandwidth usage[2]. We're unlikely to reverse that.
We still support apple-touch-icon-* via link rel under some circumstances
(e.g. for
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> For we already define the /favicon.ico fallback. If a
> page lacks we should probably also look at
> Apple's proprietary extension here given that it's quite widely
> adopted. Chrome supports it and there is some work going on in Firefo
some data here: http://indiewebcamp.com/icon
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> For we already define the /favicon.ico fallback. If a
> page lacks we should probably also look at
> Apple's proprietary extension here given that it's quite widely
> adopted. Chrome suppo
For we already define the /favicon.ico fallback. If a
page lacks we should probably also look at
Apple's proprietary extension here given that it's quite widely
adopted. Chrome supports it and there is some work going on in Firefox
as well: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=921014
--
14 matches
Mail list logo